The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-01-19

tuStbAuu SSfiafb 10 appropriated lOr
the purpose Of the investigation.
Mr.. Daniel (Vs.), on behalf OF the
Committee on Labor, called up the
resolution setting ssde the Goth jan
uAry for the consideration OF the Blair
educational bill.
Mr.. Springer Ill J moved to lay the
resolution on the table. Lott-yeas
~, nays 1876.
The morning hour expired before
final action was taken on the resolu-
ton.
Mr.. Grip (Ga) then called up and
the House proceeded to consider the
conference report on the interstate
commerce bill. He said there could
be no doubt as 10 the power and right
OF Congress TO legislste in the premi-
ees. Pss,ing on TO discussion OF the
long aud short hauls section, he de-
Clared that the basis upon which
freight rates should be fixed was the
value Of the line and the cost Of trans
portstion. He did noE believe that
extraneous circumstances ought 10
affect the question OF charges. 1t
was no busi1tss OF the railroad COM
pany where the g)cds came from
or where thev went Rfer they
left its line. Its busness was to
transport at reasonable rates any
freight that might be brought 10 it.
Believing these thing, his undtr.
standing oil tho section was that it
would bring about reasonable rates
without discrimination, and would FIX
the charges for through traffic rs the
maximum rates which might be
charged between any other points on
the same line.
Mr.. ButteIworth (0.), in order to
obtain Mr.. Crisp's Interpretation of
ths sect 90, put a hypothetical ques-
ton: Suppose on 4 line Of railroad
between A aud Q there was water COM
petition, and ia order to obtain the
ffeight ce tain raj rate was charged
by the railIo d /; suppose that between
A aud Is (Which vas nearer 10 A than
y wss) there wss no wster compeii.
ton. Would the ct that there WAS
no competition in the one case and
there WAS competition in the other
present "substal tally similar cream
stance and conditions, which wonld
prohibit the company from charging
more for the short than the lorg han
Mr.. Crisp replied that ia his jndg-
ment the fact that there WIS compe-
tiIion or no competition would not at.
feet the quest on.
Mr.. Butterworth suggested that in
that case the long haul between A. and
O. was pIac icaily abolithed.
Mr.. Crisp did not agree with this as-
sumption. The bill gave an advantage
to the loDg haul. There was no effort
10 place the rates on per mile basis
The restriction only went go far as to
say that L o more should be charged for
a short than long haul. A an illus.
tratloD OF the evils Of the present sys-
TEN, he iustanced the case OF the Zoe
OF railroads from New York to New
Orleans, which had water competi-
ton. The railroad, which charged 70
cents per 100 pounds from New York
to New Orleans, charged ST. per 100
pounds from New York to Atlanta,
which WAS about half wav.
Mr.. Butterworth conceded that the
charge from New York to New Or
leans was based upon the water COM
petition. 1t was imposl ibls for the
railroads to get the freight for New
Orleans unless it charged the rates
which allowed 1t to compete with.the
water routes. Gould the gentleman
explain how IL would benefit Atlanta
to cut of that long haul altogether.
Mr.. Crisp commended that Atlanta
was entitled to reasonable rate.
What was or was not reaeons BILE vas q
question OF fact that must be Sc tied
not on the basis Of competition, but
ON the basis Of cost.
Mr.. Buttsrworth suggested thst
competition was one Of the factors in
the settlement OF the question.
Mr.. Crisp regarded the suggestion
as erroneous. II was one of the errors
made by the transportation com
panies. They lost sight of the ausi-
ness for which ihsy were organized.
The gentleman from Ohio said that If
the railroad from New York to New
Orleans did not charge a certain rate
II could not get business. 1t should
not have any business unless it could
make reasonable profits, and il the
rate OF 76 cents per hundred was
rea enable profit from New York to
New Orleans, Whist kind of a prof.
Yves 81 from New York 10 Atlantis. II
it made no profit by the hansporta.
ton of fraignt from Nav York 70 New
Orleans, it WAS double hardship to
intermediate points, for they we're
taxed to make mp tina loss. So at last
1t was question Of the reasonable
ness OF the rates.
Mr.. Butterwofth supposed the case
OF a littt9 village twenty miles from
WashiDe' on the Inhabitants of which
wers Obliged to pay 8 cents bushsl
on their coal. A railroad comes along
and says to them, 1--WE will haul your
coal for 3 cents bushel, because We
have competition here, but we will
only charge 2 cents a point beyond
where we have no competition" Did
that II lure the men who had thereto
fore paid 8 cents bushel for coal?
Mr.. Crisp replied that the cess was
plausibly stated, but it was based on
the erroneous idea, what is it worth
to the shipper2" That was the gentle
mans position. His position was,
"What does 1t cost the transporter ?"
He then proceeded to argue in sup
port Of the "pooling" section, charac-
terizing the present system OF pooling
as a device on the part of indepen-
dent monopolies to build up and
maintain one great corporation. 1t
was q device to defeat competition,
and the talk about the maintenance
of rates and traffic unity meant tina.
alone. The bill was not all be would
like to zee 1t, but, taken as whole, he
commended it to those representatives
OF the people who believed that there
was some substantial wrong being
done by railroad corporations, who
believed that tho murmurs OF the peo-
pie wers well founded and who pro-
posed to make the first assertion Of the
government to control those corpora
tons.
Mr.. 0'Neil (Pa) spoke against the
conference report, and Mr.. Hopkins
| I'M made an argument In support Of
/